As Greg Sargent argues this morning so much of 2016 will be about staking out one's position realitve to Obama. The GOP candidates will try to position themselves as the candidate to most effectively oppose Obama while Hillary will be careful to show her agreement with him.
"As you may recall, Scott Walker has pledged to undo any Iran deal on Day One of his presidency, even if our European allies want the deal to continue. In a new interview with NPR that aired this morning, President Obama responded, arguing that Walker is being “foolish” and may revise his views “after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy.”
"Walker’s attack is a reminder that Republicans continue to frame their opposition to any Iran deal in narrow terms — I pledge to stick it to Obama and undo his capitulation to Iran on Day One!!! — when in fact the talks also involve major allies, meaning all sorts of consequences could resultfrom blowing up an international deal to which they are parties. Obama’s response did hint at the general idea that recklessly undermining our agreements with other countries would “embolden our enemies.”
"As you may recall, Scott Walker has pledged to undo any Iran deal on Day One of his presidency, even if our European allies want the deal to continue. In a new interview with NPR that aired this morning, President Obama responded, arguing that Walker is being “foolish” and may revise his views “after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy.”
"Walker’s attack is a reminder that Republicans continue to frame their opposition to any Iran deal in narrow terms — I pledge to stick it to Obama and undo his capitulation to Iran on Day One!!! — when in fact the talks also involve major allies, meaning all sorts of consequences could resultfrom blowing up an international deal to which they are parties. Obama’s response did hint at the general idea that recklessly undermining our agreements with other countries would “embolden our enemies.”
"It’s in this contrast that the outlines of the 2016 argument can be discerned. In her statement indicating support for the emerging Iran framework, Hillary Clinton did say that the devil will be in the details of a final deal. But she unequivocally endorsed the idea that a negotiated diplomatic settlement between the U.S., Iran, and the “major world powers” is the best way to achieve the goal of blocking Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon and strengthening the national security of both the U.S. and Israel."
" If Obama gets his way, two of the most important pieces of his legacy — an Iran deal, and a global climate treaty — will involve comprehensive international settlements. Hillary Clinton will all but certainly support an eventual Iran deal, and she’s already pledged to protect all of Obama’s climate actions “at all cost.” Thus, she will be for international engagement as the solution to two of the most pressing problems the country faces: The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and climate change. Meanwhile, on Iran and climate, the eventual 2016 GOP presidential nominee will probably have pledged to undo whatever Obama has achieved — locking him on both fronts into a position of staunch opposition to international engagement."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/07/morning-plum-on-iran-and-climate-change-obama-puts-stamp-on-2016/
This is going to be the dynamic on most issues. The GOP candidates will obsessively try to run as anti-Obama while Hillary will offer continuity on most issues. As Paul Waldman noted yesterday, Democrats are amazingly united on most important issues-while the only thing the GOP really agrees on is blanket opposition to anything Obama did or supported.
Don't get me wrong, I find this GOP position of just blanket opposition pathetic, but what's also pathetic is that such a morally and intellectually bankrupt party continues to win roughly 50 percent of US elections at all levels. It's a joke, all right, but the joke is mostly on us.
P.S. Elections after a President steps down are often referendums on their legacy with the opposition party running against them-so Bush ran against Clinton's alleged sleaziness and the Dems ran against Bush's wars and the financial crisis. However, this time around it's not just the man but the policies that are on the ballot-everything from ACA, to immigration reform, to the Iran deal, to ending the Cuban embargo.
P.S. Elections after a President steps down are often referendums on their legacy with the opposition party running against them-so Bush ran against Clinton's alleged sleaziness and the Dems ran against Bush's wars and the financial crisis. However, this time around it's not just the man but the policies that are on the ballot-everything from ACA, to immigration reform, to the Iran deal, to ending the Cuban embargo.
No comments:
Post a Comment